Executive summary of planning commission report re ROR 2006 and 2007

Thanx to Cristina Bauss for sending the report to me. I had to do some formatting to post it here. It also contains many typos, some of which I’ve corrected and some of which I can’t make sense. I’m also bolding the portions which seem to be of the most significance. Basically, the two main points are that the staff recommend that the proposal to increase attendance limits be rejected, and actually that the limitations be lowered. Secondly, the staff is basically backing Tom Dimmick’s legal position with regard to the ownership of the permit. So notwithstanding the disparaging comments posted here, Mary Anderson got it right.

The applicant submitted an annual report for the 2006 Reggae on the River music festival as required by conditions of approval for their is proposing to modify the Conditional Use Permit for the annual Reggae on the River music festival (the annual report and conditions of approval are attached). The approved conditional use permit allows the event to be held over the first weekend of August, from Friday through the year 2015to Sunday in 2006 and 2007 at on the 120 acre property known as Dimmick Ranch the and French’s Camp site (APN 33-271-05). Attendance is limited to 8,500 ticket-holders, and approximately 2,000 staff, volunteers, performers, guests, etc. for a total of 10,500 persons. The proposed modification will move the main concert event to the adjacent property to the south, a 120 acre property known as Dimmick Ranch (a portion of the former site east of the river will still be used for camping). The applicants are also requesting ticket sales be allowed to increase to 12,000, and w. With the commensurate increase in staff and volunteers, the total number of persons allowed at the event is will increase to 14,400 persons. The modification will also allow campers to arrive at the site a day earlier (Thursday), although the hours of performance will remain the same. They are also requesting the timeframe for the use permit be extended from 2007 to 2015.

The annual report discusses that many of the issues confronted by the event organizers and staff stem from the difficulty of moving the location of the main event from the French’s Camp site, where the event has been held for the past 22 years, to its new site at Dimmick Ranch. The report acknowledges ways the mitigation measures that have worked before did not work as successfully as they have in the past. The report describes concerns with dust, road compaction, hours of music, realignment of the river bars due to high water during the winter and spring, counterfeiting of parking passes, technical issues with the ticket scanning equipment, and a small fire caused by a bird flying into an electrical transformer. The report identifies the proposed refinements to mitigation measures necessary to reduce the impacts of the project to less than significant levels.

The annual report also contains an assessment of attendance levels and traffic monitoring report. The assessment describes the attendance within approved levels at all times except on Saturday, when attendance reached an estimated 15,888 persons, which is 1,488 persons more than allowed by the CUP. Staff has asked for an amended Attendance Report that describes the qualifications of the author and methodology used to derive the attendance figures.

The traffic report documents successful handling of traffic entering and exiting the project site such that minimal safety hazards were observed. Some patrons exited their cars while in the queue resulting in a safety hazard, and gaps between cars parked in the queue enabled cars to enter and exit from the through traffic lane, which also caused concerns for both the CHP and CalTrans. The report documents mitigation measures necessary to implement in future years to reduce the potential safety risks observed.

Overall the 2006 event appears to have been successful. Based on the report findings, on-site inspection and monitoring provisions and comments from involved reviewing agencies, the Department believes that the applicant has submitted evidence in support of maintaining the existing mitigation measures and operational restrictions with some adjustments as described in the annual report and in the staff report. This notwithstanding, deficiencies noted in the agency comments, in particular, failure to satisfy all Division of Environmental Health (DEH) permit requirements, must be corrected prior to initiation of the 2007 event. Further, staff is recommending that the “Consolidated Event Operations Plan” as described in the DEH memorandum dated November 29, 2006 be made part of the DEH clearance review step as described in Condition A.3 of the Conditions of Approval (COA).

Given that the independent third-party attendance report shows that the concert limit “cap” was exceeded during the 2006 event (Saturday August 5th) by almost 1,500 persons, staff has concerns over permitting the increase in attendance levels of 2,500 additional persons as requested. If current measures cannot maintain the attendance levels, staff believes that the appropriate response would be to back off of the 2006 limits to reduce the overall attendance by this “overage” (i.e., reduce “cap” by 1,488 persons), or have the applicant provide to the Commission’s satisfaction new measures capable of ensuring that concert attendance “caps” will be adhered to. The applicant proposes to conduct the event in accordance with the previously approved Operational, Mitigation and Monitoring Program established for the 1998 – 2004 performances, modified as needed to respond to the new site conditions and evolving agency requirements. The proposal includes off-site parking on four sites within 2 miles of the event site. The on-site medivac helicopter site is being moved off-site to a State Highway Right of Way along Highway 101 just south of the Humboldt County line, a location considered more protective of public safety.

Moving most of the event to the new site causes new impacts on the environment, which are described in the Supplemental EIR for the project. For example, the main entrance to the event to the south 1/2 mile so the traffic flow along Highway 101 and into the site is being reconfigured. A summary of the potential new impacts of the project is provided beginning on page 3 of the Supplemental EIR.

Written correspondence received on the project is attached. There have been several community meetings on the event in the Cooks Valley and Piercy areas. While several persons expressed concerns, the applicant has been working with them to try to resolve their concerns.

Based on the successful aspects ful past history of the 2006 event, on-site inspection and monitoring provisions, a review of Planning Division reference sources, and comments from all involved referral agencies, the Department believes that the applicant has submitted evidence in support of maintaining the existing mitigation measures and operational restrictions with some adjustments as described in the annual report and in the staff report.

There does not appear to be sufficient evidence to warrant granting an increase in attendance levels of 2,500 persons as requested. The audit of attendance levels at the 2006 event shows they exceeded the approved amount by nearly 1,500 persons. The audit does not contain any information about the qualifications of the author, it is unclear what the name of that person is, and there is no description of the methodology used to derive the figures. Accordingly, staff, absent a showing of an attendance control mechanism, is recommending ticket sales be reduced by 1,488 tickets making all of the required findings for that total attendance (tickets and event staff/volunteers) for the 2007 event be reduced to not more than 12,912 persons to align the use with the permit.

Finally, one issue related to the public hearing item that has received significant press coverage in the local newspapers is whether the property owners (Tom Dimmick and the Arthur Trust) have all the rights and responsibilities of the project, or whether those extend to the applicant for the Conditional Use Permit, the Mateel Community Center. It is staff’s understanding that the Use Permit is issued to the property owner runs with the land. There may be contractual agreements between the owner and applicant linked to the Use Permit, but these are not considered by the Use Permit approving the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and the Conditional Use Permit application.

The first step in the public hearing process will be to take public comment on the draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) and identify those areas where changes or additions are needed to complete the document. It is recommended the February 2, 2006 hearing be allocated for this purpose. The draft Final Environmental Impact Report would then be circulated for review and discussion at the continued public hearing on February 16, 2006, and the final product would be presented for review and approval at the public hearing on March 2, 2006.

ALTERNATIVES:

The Planning Commission could elect not to approve the project, or to approve the Delayed Implementation Alternative as described in the Supplemental EIR. The decision to deny the application should be made if your Commission is unable to make one or more of the required findings to set attendance levels at any amount from a low of 8,500 ticket sales plus 2,000 personnel to a high of 14,500 ticket sales plus 2.400 personnel. Approval of the Delayed Implementation Alternative should occur if the Commission finds it necessary to further reduce the environmental impacts of the project from the levels of impacts associated with the proposed project. Without the benefit of future testimony that may be presented at the public hearings, Planning Division staff is confident that the required findings can be made assumes that under the same operational procedures as last year, 1,488 persons over the permitted levels will again occur, so we recommend reducing allowed ticket sales by 1,488 persons.. Consequently, With no evidence to suggest a better approach, planning staff does not recommend consideration of these other alternatives at this time. The Commission may also make changes to the proposed mitigation measures.

There is more to the report, but I haven’t had the chance to look at it closely. It’s not readable in its current format. I may post more later.

Addendum: Bob Doran has a great update/summary in this week’s North Coast Journal for you ROR v. PP junkies.

25 comments

Seems like a new theory of permitting is happening at the Humboldt planning Commission.The applicant is liable for anything that happens at the event yet the permit belongs to the landowner? The applicant spends lots of money on EIRs , traffic studies and other studies neccessary for a CUP but now that belongs to the land owner? I wouldn’t apply for a CUP under those conditions. An EIR can cost 10’s if not over 100 thousand . Ohter studdies can cost thousands of dollars and the property owner can just take them anytime they decide they want it. Oh the American Way to justice seems to have become the refuge of crooks and scoudrels.

Excuse me for thinking about it, but most commercial leases very plainly state that ALL improvements become the property of the landholder. Which lease, by-the-way, also plainly states, the landholder will be held harmless!

I would be incredibly surprised if the landholder didn’t have that kind of wording in his lease.

What surprises me even more is that there are people surprised when they find out the truth of the whole situation! What does the world look like with your head above the sand?

The Mateel’s theory is that because they applied for the permit (in their name, although apparently the Planning dept has removed their name from everything), paid for it, and paid for the EIR, the permit belongs to them. So far, I haven’t seen either side cite any law. It may very well be that it hasn’t come up before – the situation being very unique and bizarre.

Well then, is there any case law on the subject? I’ve never heard of a landlord deciding to hold his own event using his lessee’s permit. I’m quite confident it doesn’t happen all the time. But maybe I’m wrong.

Is a permit a right or a license? Rights run with the property, owner after owner, whereas a license, though attached to a property, are given to a holder of the license, and can be terminated and not continue to burden the land. This permit is probably more of a license. On the other hand if this permit was issued on the presumption that a community oriented non-profit was to be the primary beneficiary and it somehow has evolved into a for profit privatized event, then there is a strong argument that the permit should be declared null and void and that the landowner must apply for a new one under different auspices. It would be nice to have the actual contract between the Mateel and Dimmick posted online so that the specultion can end and factual interpretation can occur. Also, the planning department is not always legally right and are just fallible interpreters like everyone else.

And if the planning commission let Dimmick move forward with the ReggaeRising plans on the Reggae on the River permits, and somehow this was decreed impermissable by the judge the following week, what happens?Any way the planning commission gets liable for improper something or another??I’m glad I’m not a lawyer.

Well, we’ve got 160 days until the first weekend in August. Let’s hope SOMEONE will agree to bend, so it won’t get broken. Call me over-optimistic, but I keep hoping for a miracle. Hey, it COULD happen!

Some one close to Peoples told me that the county had informed Carol that they had no intentions of giving the CUP to the Mateel. They don’t know who the Mateel is. They intend to give it to the people who have been putting on the event for years.The county is not too well known for doing what is legal, either.

Eric, any interest in polling the public to see whether they would prefer that the event skip a year or discontinue rather than be co opted by Dimmick/PP?

I liken this use permit to a building permit, which I beleive is the closest corralary. It is issued to the landowner and subject to whatever other contracts may be in effect.

Suppose I leased some property and I wanted to make improvements like the improvements made at the Reggae site.

The landowner has no stake in needing or wanting those improvements necesarily and won’t pay for them, but he will allow them to be effected on his land via a contract/lease agreement.

But I can not own the right to make those improvements or the improvements themselves under authority granted by a county agency. The county can ONLY issue that permit to the land owner who might have secondary agreements with me.

Something to keep in mind is that this permit is for an event that does not just effect the landowner, but rather has a geographic, environmental, and economic footprint much larger. So the argument that it is just a license that runs with the land is definitely appealable. Who knows, new precedent may be set here or old precedent upheld. What is the precedent that rules in this situation? Not a bad idea to close the whole thing down for a year or two and let the “community” see what life can be like without it. There are many who don’t know any other way to do summertime.

Would any of this matter if Dimmick has a contract with the Mateel that is valid? Because if Dimmick’s contract is valid with the Mateel than all the county CUP stuff does not matter. If the CUP is in Dimmick’s name so what? If the judge decides in the Mateel’s favor then Dimmick has to honor the contract/guarantee with the Mateel no matter how much he wants to back out of the guarantee/contract. The CUP is secondary in this argument. In fact the CUP has nothing to do with this argument. Here is why. If the CUP is the Mateel’s but Dimmick does not have to honor his contract/guarantee with the Mateel the CUP is not going to do the Mateel any good. Where will they hold the event if Dimmick does not have to honor his contract/guarantee with the Mateel? CUP or no CUP. Now if Dimmick is forced to do what he said he would do when he signed the contract with the Mateel and the CUP is still in his name then the Mateel gets to put on Reggae on the River® like they have done for 23 years anyway (The Mateel just paid Carol Bruno to help them do it and it looks like the Mateel have been forced to hire somebody else to help them do it this year. But I digress.). Here is the main deal with the CUP and how it relates to Dimmick and the Mateel. If it is the Mateel’s CUP then Carol Bruno’s/Tommy Dimmick’s faux Reggae on the River has to get their own damn permit if the judge rules that Dimmick does not have to honor his contract/guarantee with the Mateel that he signed and gave his word to. If the judge rules in Dimmick’s favor (and how that could happen is beyond even the simplest minds) and the CUP is Dimmick’s name then Carol Bruno’s/Tommy Dimmick’s faux Reggae on the River has a CUP. Something I wonder about and admit that I don’t know is if there are other permits that Carol Bruno’s/Tommy Dimmick’s faux Reggae on the River would need because surely those other permits (if they are needed) are in the Mateel’s name at this time. You don’t think that Carol Bruno/Tommy Dimmick would have put those other permits (if they are needed to put on the faux Reggae on the River) in their names do you? The bottom line is the CUP is there and if Dimmick has to honor his word then there is no problem. If Dimmick does not have to honor his word then the Mateel is screwed as far as using the Dimmick land is concerned. That does not mean that the Mateel is screwed in relation to what Carol Bruno/People Productions have done to them. That is a whole other can of worms that will be debated an this web page as the subject comes up. One thing at a time, as they say. Don’t worry about the CUP. Keep your eye on the ball!

Did somebody say something about permitted number of people allowed into the event and how it may change? I wonder what the county and the people of Piercy think aobut the number of people attending the event every year. It seems that Carol Bruno/People Productions seem to get more people into the event every year than what they tell the county and the people of Piercy that will be allowed to attend. What is up with that? Oh… oh. I get it. It goes to Carol Bruno/People Productions giving their word/signing a contract/guaranteeing something. Their word seems to not get in the way of anything Carol Bruno/People Productions say. Their word. Seems to be worth as much with the county and the people of Piercy as it is with the Mateel or on contracts. Worthless. Would you take a guarentee from Carol Bruno/People Productions?

One of the things endearing the new production company to some in the Piercy area is the numbering of wristbands that has been promised: more accountability. And I too wouldn’t be upset with a more in scale event. Clarissa

I have recently had an idea that many won’t like, but could work..How about both entities hold their events on the same weekend? MCC has ROTR at French’s and PP has RR at Dimmick Ranch. The use permit is for 12k people, so split the tickets like this or so: 6000 tickets to be sold for admissions to BOTH events, then 3000 tickets for each to sell to the people who only want to attend one event. Put a huge razor wire fence on the bridge that was there last year that people can only walk through if they have the special high grade ticket that cost them 300bucks. Parking and camping for either event would be on each side. Coordinators that are needed for both events could work for both parties, since they are friends to both, fans could enjoy both shows that have great lineups, everybody wins! Including vendors, who would double in size of booths, or be spread out, spread out seems to make more sense because where you are at when you are stoned with the munchies, if there is less to choose from, you buy what looks edible…. But you naysayers will find lots wrong with this, but a person can dream can’t they?….